Devs say that, "Don't worry about goals or an end game just login and have fun. Explore and see what happens." My mind doesn't work that way. It's goal orientated. I have to have a short term and long term goal. Been playing for a very long time and I always play that way. Not saying sometimes I do just take off and explore but to do it all the time would feel strange.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Trying new ideas and thinking about other ways to make mechanics work is not madness.
The devs already did. Don't make MMOs. Make MOBAs, shooters, TCGs, and other types of online games. Different ideas, other ways ... it looks like it is totally working.
I like quests to be real quests. Like kill that dragon, which would take a few months of journey and preparation and you'd have to go through a whole adventure to make it happen. Fuck side quests. I can never understand them. I'm on way to kill a dragon to save the kingdom but on my way I stop at an Inn to kill the freaking rats? Who does that?
It's nice to face the related problems and obstacles on the way. But no man has ever stopped to pick flowers for the village's idiot on his way to kill a dragon.
Just curious here, how would you want that Dragon quest designed? Repeatable on demand or one off as a world event? (In a one off, there'd need to be ways to make it better than just a mad dash of a massive hoard of players to the Dragon, as in finding it first, or defeating it's minions to get to it, or whatever other ideas.) I see "one off" quests like this as World Events and part of that quest is to seek out the goal, a race of sorts against every other group of players doing the same thing.
One off yes. And I don't mean like a raid boss. I really liked what EQNEXT was planning to do.
They can be massive scaled, like killing a dragon or conquering a castle or small scaled and more solo centric. I don't mind going through a very long journeg to learn a new more powerful fireball skill.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Devs say that, "Don't worry about goals or an end game just login and have fun. Explore and see what happens." My mind doesn't work that way. It's goal orientated. I have to have a short term and long term goal. Been playing for a very long time and I always play that way. Not saying sometimes I do just take off and explore but to do it all the time would feel strange.
You mean you have to be provided the goals, evidently. That's what these games do. They tell you where to go and what to do. And they give you your success if you do. If you don't, say you are level 10 and you go to level 30 zones, breaking away from what the Devs tell you to do, they won't let you have success.
Moreover, you're a sardine in a can. Along with every other player. Puppets to the Dev puppet masters. You're the character in a comic book, written by someone else, exactly the same as a thousand or more other players. You're "a legend in your own mind", so to speak.
There are a lot of ways a GOOD Sandbox world game can allow you to create your own choice of goals: -From searching the world for new (or greater) magical powers, -to building great wealth, -to collecting rare things that you can set the price for, or for your own collection, -to hunting trophies to display in your home, -to becoming famous for something (like being a Dragon hunter of knowledge and skill), -to being a guide through a magical forest, -to running specific player events like auctions or hunting trips, -to running a tavern/general store on the edge of an active hunting grounds, -to many many things.
In a true Sandbox world that's really a good game, everything is open to your own choices for goals. In Themeparks, they build the choice for you and that's all you can effectively do. And that's all that matters, according to what zone you are currently playing, soon to be changed anyways.
You mean you have to be provided the goals, evidently. That's what these games do. They tell you where to go and what to do. And they give you your success if you do. If you don't, say you are level 10 and you go to level 30 zones, breaking away from what the Devs tell you to do, they won't let you have success.
Moreover, you're a sardine in a can. Along with every other player. Puppets to the Dev puppet masters. You're the character in a comic book, written by someone else, exactly the same as a thousand or more other players. You're "a legend in your own mind", so to speak.
There are a lot of ways a GOOD Sandbox world game can allow you to create your own choice of goals: -From searching the world for new (or greater) magical powers, -to building great wealth, -to collecting rare things that you can set the price for, or for your own collection, -to hunting trophies to display in your home, -to becoming famous for something (like being a Dragon hunter of knowledge and skill), -to being a guide through a magical forest, -to running specific player events like auctions or hunting trips, -to running a tavern/general store on the edge of an active hunting grounds, -to many many things.
In a true Sandbox world that's really a good game, everything is open to your own choices for goals. In Themeparks, they build the choice for you and that's all you can effectively do. And that's all that matters, according to what zone you are currently playing, soon to be changed anyways.
There are 2 problems though:
1. Building a good sandbox is way harder then a themepark, and unlike what the poor schmucks at Goblinworks thought it is not cheaper either. Yes, players create a lot of the content but getting the mechanics for that just right takes a lot of hard work.
2. There is always that nasty kid in a sandbox that never builds anything but jumps on the other kids sandcastles. If you reel him in he will scream like a pig and make everyone miserable, if you let him keep at it the builders will leave. We usually try to ignore that kid but it never helps.
Sandbox games do need strife but you tend to get far too many people only tearing things down and not making anything and when you get that unbalance the rest of the players tend to leave. That is why so many sandbox games have so few players, even otherwise pretty good games.
How will you solve that?
And no, I am not against sandbox games, far from it but sadly they far too often turn into FFA PvP loot games with less then 20K players. You need more people that build stuff then tears it down since building takes far longer then destroying.
We already have 1 Mortal online, don't need another one.
1. Building a good sandbox is way harder then a themepark, and unlike what the poor schmucks at Goblinworks thought it is not cheaper either. Yes, players create a lot of the content but getting the mechanics for that just right takes a lot of hard work.
2. There is always that nasty kid in a sandbox that never builds anything but jumps on the other kids sandcastles. If you reel him in he will scream like a pig and make everyone miserable, if you let him keep at it the builders will leave. We usually try to ignore that kid but it never helps.
Sandbox games do need strife but you tend to get far too many people only tearing things down and not making anything and when you get that unbalance the rest of the players tend to leave. That is why so many sandbox games have so few players, even otherwise pretty good games.
How will you solve that?
And no, I am not against sandbox games, far from it but sadly they far too often turn into FFA PvP loot games with less then 20K players. You need more people that build stuff then tears it down since building takes far longer then destroying.
We already have 1 Mortal online, don't need another one.
Problem # 1 isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. Especially today, after the "WoW clones" have run their course.
Problem # 2 isn't either. What you are saying is correct but neglects what can be done to fix those old problems and make a truly good game.
Yes, some players just want to destroy. Whether it's what players build or player's fun. But what if such destructions become game play? What if destruction of built things is a crime? What if PKing is a crime? What if there are official sanctions for such activities (warfare)?
Then such negative actions become more game play, as players "defend" themselves against those things just like they do in a sanctioned war (or have friends and/or associates take care of it for them, making cities, trade associations, etc., even more viable). On top of that, if crimes come with an unavoidable penalty, the good guys get the satisfaction of "justice done" while the bad guys have to think twice BEFORE doing the crime.
I'm talking about penalties that hurt, but start out small so as to allow a little bit of such actions (in most cases). That would allow players to PK that jerk who's ruining their event. Add the ability to declare war on groups, as another reason for the bad players to tow the line, and this would be outside of a justice system (part of regular game play).
There are social mechanics that can be used too, such as demanding guild or city bannings of particular troublemakers, or else war or trade sanctions.
There's a LOT that can be done, and it all would make for a much more interesting game world for the average player. Probably for "bad" players too, since it adds real challenge, as well as actually making their style viable in the overall scheme of things (just not rampant).
As far as Goblinworks, they screwed themselves when they started talking about instanced game play. That's contrary to a true worldly MMO.
Money, sheesh, you need a lot of money to make a good MMO. That's the fact of the matter. But I do think a company can start out small and "basic". But they need a plan. And they absolutely need to have some things that grab players from the get-go.
Problem # 1 isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. Especially today, after the "WoW clones" have run their course.
Problem # 2 isn't either. What you are saying is correct but neglects what can be done to fix those old problems and make a truly good game.
Yes, some players just want to destroy. Whether it's what players build or player's fun. But what if such destructions become game play? What if destruction of built things is a crime? What if PKing is a crime? What if there are official sanctions for such activities (warfare)?
Then such negative actions become more game play, as players "defend" themselves against those things just like they do in a sanctioned war (or have friends and/or associates take care of it for them, making cities, trade associations, etc., even more viable). On top of that, if crimes come with an unavoidable penalty, the good guys get the satisfaction of "justice done" while the bad guys have to think twice BEFORE doing the crime.
I'm talking about penalties that hurt, but start out small so as to allow a little bit of such actions (in most cases). That would allow players to PK that jerk who's ruining their event. Add the ability to declare war on groups, as another reason for the bad players to tow the line, and this would be outside of a justice system (part of regular game play).
There are social mechanics that can be used too, such as demanding guild or city bannings of particular troublemakers, or else war or trade sanctions.
There's a LOT that can be done, and it all would make for a much more interesting game world for the average player. Probably for "bad" players too, since it adds real challenge, as well as actually making their style viable in the overall scheme of things (just not rampant).
As far as Goblinworks, they screwed themselves when they started talking about instanced game play. That's contrary to a true worldly MMO.
Money, sheesh, you need a lot of money to make a good MMO. That's the fact of the matter. But I do think a company can start out small and "basic". But they need a plan. And they absolutely need to have some things that grab players from the get-go.
This is -NO- Mortal Online I'm talking about.
A company can start out small, Eve had initially 20K players and was made on a low budget.
As for ways to limit the people who just play to destroy other stuff more then a few games have tried (heard of "Trammel"? for UO) it is just that it is easier said then done. The jerks tend to stack up and the people gunting them for PK are never enough.
I am not saying it can't be done, just that you either need to take the realm approach (no PK to other realm members) or figure out something new that actually works.
Yes, Eve works but partly because it is in massive space and partly because you don't start build lots of stuff all around like in a ground based sandbox.
And Goblinworks were screwed the moment they thought a sandbox could be built for a tenth of the price of a themepark, The instancing wouldn't really matter since even without them they clearly didn't understand how much work making a good sandbox game is.
Writing a thousand quests is easy (vanilla Guildwars quests were written by 4 guys and it was several thousands, and those guys did other work including coding the engine) and you can predict what your players will do that way.
Sandboxes needs plenty of testing to work and that is expensive if you want to make it work. But I assume you know that as well unlike Goblin works.
Social mechhanics could help in the right game, CCPs WoDO were designed with a lot of that but it sadly got canned. In your case I would add a few factions at least, that limits the people who can destroy others work and gives you allies when they are running amok in your area. That is probably not enough and outlawing people like that didn't work in other games, nor does stuff like city guards.
A company can start out small, Eve had initially 20K players and was made on a low budget.
As for ways to limit the people who just play to destroy other stuff more then a few games have tried (heard of "Trammel"? for UO) it is just that it is easier said then done. The jerks tend to stack up and the people gunting them for PK are never enough.
I am not saying it can't be done, just that you either need to take the realm approach (no PK to other realm members) or figure out something new that actually works.
Yes, Eve works but partly because it is in massive space and partly because you don't start build lots of stuff all around like in a ground based sandbox.
And Goblinworks were screwed the moment they thought a sandbox could be built for a tenth of the price of a themepark, The instancing wouldn't really matter since even without them they clearly didn't understand how much work making a good sandbox game is.
Writing a thousand quests is easy (vanilla Guildwars quests were written by 4 guys and it was several thousands, and those guys did other work including coding the engine) and you can predict what your players will do that way.
Sandboxes needs plenty of testing to work and that is expensive if you want to make it work. But I assume you know that as well unlike Goblin works.
Social mechhanics could help in the right game, CCPs WoDO were designed with a lot of that but it sadly got canned. In your case I would add a few factions at least, that limits the people who can destroy others work and gives you allies when they are running amok in your area. That is probably not enough and outlawing people like that didn't work in other games, nor does stuff like city guards.
The game I'd design would have factions, but not like you are thinking. These factions would be similar to guilds, but based on the social-economic needs of player run cities. And from there, alliances. If you give players a reason to do something they will, if it's fun. And there's plenty of PvP minded players who'd do that stuff in defense of their city/alliance when the need arises. They don't have to play city guards, just act as the bringers of justice against "criminals" against their fellow citizens.
City growth and success would come from player activity, and that should have ways of benefiting the citizens as a whole. So defending your fellow citizens and keeping them IN YOUR CITY should be a part of the social game play. Where as a poorly run city should lose it's citizens when they leave for a better place. Trade between cities should play a major role in it all, too, enhancing the benefits of citizenship.
As far as testing, everything needs testing. Even those quests. The real difference is in the designing. THAT's where Sandbox games become more difficult than Themeparks. Seeing the bigger picture is much harder when the game has everything meaning something to everything else, like in a Sandbox Worldly game. And there are people capable of that. Just not usually the same ones who smooched their way up the Themepark ladder. (Which is probably the reason for the reluctance to change, even in decline.)
Social mechhanics could help in the right game, CCPs WoDO were designed with a lot of that but it sadly got canned. In your case I would add a few factions at least, that limits the people who can destroy others work and gives you allies when they are running amok in your area. That is probably not enough and outlawing people like that didn't work in other games, nor does stuff like city guards.
Why bother? Just take away free form pvp in a pve game, and put pvp in an instance. Problem solved .. and this has been done in gaming for a long time. There is no need to fix what is not broken.
Social mechhanics could help in the right game, CCPs WoDO were designed with a lot of that but it sadly got canned. In your case I would add a few factions at least, that limits the people who can destroy others work and gives you allies when they are running amok in your area. That is probably not enough and outlawing people like that didn't work in other games, nor does stuff like city guards.
Why bother? Just take away free form pvp in a pve game, and put pvp in an instance. Problem solved .. and this has been done in gaming for a long time. There is no need to fix what is not broken.
Hey, I was just answering Amaranthar who talked open world PvP.
And to be fair are there some rather interesting aspects about open world PvP if they just work out the kinks. We were not tallking about adding PvP to a PvE game (in that case why bother with instances either? PvP is usually terrible in PvE games) but either a PvP focused or a 50-50 game.
There is excitment in open world PvP if you do it right, problem is with most MMOs that the fights are determined by level and gear in most of the cases which of course is not very exciting at all. It does not work as an add-on to a PvE game but as I said, PvP is usually terrible there no matter how you do it.
Just saying that fun open world PvP can't be done is a misstake, the problem is just that it usually is incompetently done making only a few griefers happy. It is however not an easy task and require a low powergap.
FFA full loot PvP is another matter, I don't think you can do it competently in a fantasy MMORPG (a FPS like Doom where people drop a weapon you can walk over and pick up works though), at least not if you plan to even get 50K players.
Open world RvR is another matter. Amaranthar said:
The game I'd design would have factions, but not like you are thinking. These factions would be similar to guilds, but based on the social-economic needs of player run cities. And from there, alliances. If you give players a reason to do something they will, if it's fun. And there's plenty of PvP minded players who'd do that stuff in defense of their city/alliance when the need arises. They don't have to play city guards, just act as the bringers of justice against "criminals" against their fellow citizens.
City growth and success would come from player activity, and that should have ways of benefiting the citizens as a whole. So defending your fellow citizens and keeping them IN YOUR CITY should be a part of the social game play. Where as a poorly run city should lose it's citizens when they leave for a better place. Trade between cities should play a major role in it all, too, enhancing the benefits of citizenship.
As far as testing, everything needs testing. Even those quests. The real difference is in the designing. THAT's where Sandbox games become more difficult than Themeparks. Seeing the bigger picture is much harder when the game has everything meaning something to everything else, like in a Sandbox Worldly game. And there are people capable of that. Just not usually the same ones who smooched their way up the Themepark ladder. (Which is probably the reason for the reluctance to change, even in decline.)
As long as the factions are pretty big and control some land it doesn't matter if it is a nation, a religious order or even a trading company or outlaw gang. It is about safety in numbers, conflicts and temporary allinces with other factions and so on.
And that is exactly what I was thinking, but I am also thinking that you shouldn't have to many of them or at least not too many alliances or the game gets too messy.
I don't think all quests actually require testing, or at least not much testing. There is just so much that can go wrong with killing rats in the moat. Escort quests, sure.
I am not against sandboxes, far from it. I am just pointing out that it is a lot of work and unlike themeparks there is no base model you just can copy, while there have been a few pretty good sandboxes so far they have been nowhere near the potential, There certainly are talented people who worked on sandboxes (the best I met personally is Notch).
Hey, I was just answering Amaranthar who talked open world PvP.
And to be fair are there some rather interesting aspects about open world PvP if they just work out the kinks. We were not tallking about adding PvP to a PvE game (in that case why bother with instances either? PvP is usually terrible in PvE games) but either a PvP focused or a 50-50 game.
There is excitment in open world PvP if you do it right, problem is with most MMOs that the fights are determined by level and gear in most of the cases which of course is not very exciting at all. It does not work as an add-on to a PvE game but as I said, PvP is usually terrible there no matter how you do it.
Just saying that fun open world PvP can't be done is a misstake, the problem is just that it usually is incompetently done making only a few griefers happy. It is however not an easy task and require a low powergap.
FFA full loot PvP is another matter, I don't think you can do it competently in a fantasy MMORPG (a FPS like Doom where people drop a weapon you can walk over and pick up works though), at least not if you plan to even get 50K players.
Open world RvR is another matter. Amaranthar said:
As long as the factions are pretty big and control some land it doesn't matter if it is a nation, a religious order or even a trading company or outlaw gang. It is about safety in numbers, conflicts and temporary allinces with other factions and so on.
And that is exactly what I was thinking, but I am also thinking that you shouldn't have to many of them or at least not too many alliances or the game gets too messy.
I don't think all quests actually require testing, or at least not much testing. There is just so much that can go wrong with killing rats in the moat. Escort quests, sure.
I am not against sandboxes, far from it. I am just pointing out that it is a lot of work and unlike themeparks there is no base model you just can copy, while there have been a few pretty good sandboxes so far they have been nowhere near the potential, There certainly are talented people who worked on sandboxes (the best I met personally is Notch).
Thank you Loke.
What I see as the Ultimate Goal in MMO's (and I think it's quite possible) is a world that plays with freedom for the players. No more artificial boundaries, and I see level gaps that restrict players to zoned content as far too restrictive. Sure, every game should have advancement and thus limit lower "level" characters, but if a game can keep high "level" characters from "god-mode", that's what I think works for both sides of this equation.
I want to see freedom in game play advanced, and I'll try to expound on this.
For one thing, I'd like to see players able to build their own "factions" to the extent that they take over what MMO's to date do as NPC content. Open the door to it. These factions could be based on anything a group of players (or an individual) wants. -A temple of a deity -A thieves guild controlling a city (or in competition) -Mages guilds -Explorers guilds -Fishermen -Merchants -Smiths -Even just standard guilds, or whatever players want.
And each of these, if they grow strong enough, become a "Faction" in their own right. And cities would be made up of loose players and any "Factions", including guilds, that build something there (house, temple, guildhall, shrine, thieves den, store or tavern, etc.). They'd be, in effect, a loose alliance and their "glue" would be their mutual benefit, not any code outside of that which would be needed to run things (voting for council seats, taxes, maintenance, NPC guards, etc.).
This would allow both world wide city-to-city interactions as well as internal Faction interactions. So: -one "Faction" might be pushing for the City to open up trade with another City, while another Faction might be totally against it. -One guild of Smiths might be working to get city financing to help build a large forge, and another group of Smiths might be trying to beat them to that financing -One set of political ideals might be working against another. -The Thieves guild might be fighting against thieves from outside the city one day, trying to overthrow the City's council members another day, Fighting in a war to defend the City another day, and robbing it's Temples on another day.
Or, a single player or guild or any group of players, might want to build something out in the wilderness, totally avoiding City life (and it's benefits). -A Mage Tower on top of a mountain -A group of Miners -A tavern/general store halfway between cities or near a Dungeon. Each of these are also a Faction in themselves, and might have affects on others and even Cities due to trade or alliances or simply friendships/enemies/competitors.
This game would need a multi-layered highlighting system. Perhaps under the other character's name is color coded names like: -his guild (blue for alliance, red for war), -his criminal status ("murderer", or "thief") based on frequency and fame (if he has one) -his alliance factor ("Allied" or no notation) Or this can be shortened to colored letters. Or even small colored bubbles maybe.
The 3 primary factors in a game like this, with freedom and capabilities like this are: 1) Economy. The game needs a strong economic system that works and is free of cheats (mostly, probably can't ever cover everything). This sounds like PvP, but it's really Player vs. World. Cooperation or Competition need to matter. 2) Open world Sandbox without the power gaps that make levels the be-all-end-all. 3) A real Justice system, to prevent rampant griefing and destruction of all that players try to build.
Such a game also needs a huge and interesting world full of cool stuff for both the individual and the Factions. Add in GOOD quests (especially related to skill advancement and specific Faction benefits; Smiths, Temples, etc ), World -wide events, Wars for World Assets, and plenty of PvE and cool Dungeons. Add in secrets (places, magic, lore, etc.).
Remember, I said the "Ultimate Goal". Obviously only a large company with oodles of cash can build this, as is. But I think a smaller company, with good PR, can start with something much like UO, advanced a little and definitely with the working Justice system.
What I see as the Ultimate Goal in MMO's (and I think it's quite possible) is a world that plays with freedom for the players.
Lol .. MMOs are games. They don't have goals. Devs have goals. Their goal is to make money, and/or provide good entertainment. No world is needed to achieve their goals. In fact, it looks like many of them are switching from persistent virtual world to instanced gameplay, and non-MMO online games .. leading the way by Blizz.
What I see as the Ultimate Goal in MMO's (and I think it's quite possible) is a world that plays with freedom for the players.
Lol .. MMOs are games. They don't have goals. Devs have goals. Their goal is to make money, and/or provide good entertainment. No world is needed to achieve their goals. In fact, it looks like many of them are switching from persistent virtual world to instanced gameplay, and non-MMO online games .. leading the way by Blizz.
What I see as the Ultimate Goal in MMO's (and I think it's quite possible) is a world that plays with freedom for the players.
Lol .. MMOs are games. They don't have goals. Devs have goals. Their goal is to make money, and/or provide good entertainment. No world is needed to achieve their goals. In fact, it looks like many of them are switching from persistent virtual world to instanced gameplay, and non-MMO online games .. leading the way by Blizz.
Like that's working so well.
Oh yeah .. Overwatch is making tons of money and is very popular. Ditto for Hearthstone. Ditto for all the MOBAs. Destiny 1 is a big hit, and it looks like Destiny 2 is going to sell very well.
I am sure people at Blizz are patting themselves on their backs to have abandon MMORPGS (titan) and make a shooter instead. In fact, Overwatch is the highlight of activision-blizz's quarterly report.
What I see as the Ultimate Goal in MMO's (and I think it's quite possible) is a world that plays with freedom for the players.
Lol .. MMOs are games. They don't have goals. Devs have goals. Their goal is to make money, and/or provide good entertainment. No world is needed to achieve their goals. In fact, it looks like many of them are switching from persistent virtual world to instanced gameplay, and non-MMO online games .. leading the way by Blizz.
Like that's working so well.
Oh yeah .. Overwatch is making tons of money and is very popular. Ditto for Hearthstone. Ditto for all the MOBAs. Destiny 1 is a big hit, and it looks like Destiny 2 is going to sell very well.
I am sure people at Blizz are patting themselves on their backs to have abandon MMORPGS (titan) and make a shooter instead. In fact, Overwatch is the highlight of activision-blizz's quarterly report.
Is there any Massively Multiplayer in that? I know you don't care about MM, I know all you care about is "game" and not "world", but there's an untold number out there who are interested. But they ain't around this scene anymore, until someone builds something that's actually better.
And for the record, I was talking about working well as an MMorpg.
Furthermore, Narius, I'm not going to get into another one of those long back and forth's with you and your anti-MMO sewage. Here, on an MMO forum. I'm leaving for a while and avoiding your trolling agitation.
Is there any Massively Multiplayer in that? I know you don't care about MM, I know all you care about is "game" and not "world", but there's an untold number out there who are interested. But they ain't around this scene anymore, until someone builds something that's actually better.
And for the record, I was talking about working well as an MMorpg.
Is there any massively multiplayer in most WoW endgame gameplay?
Just ignore him. He doesn't add anything to any conversation. He drags the dead horse in from the back room to flog it and encourages others to do so while twisting the conversation to argue things you were never stated. He is the poorest attempt at trollish childish behavior. He purposely miscommunicates just to see the effect, his entire existence on this boards is about pushing and encouraging miscommunication. He just isn't worth the the time or effort. I would bet if we all just pretend he doesn't exist he would eventually leave.
Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I would bet if we all just pretend he doesn't exist he would eventually leave.
That is true. But even you cannot resist to jump in. In fact, isn't " just pretend he doesn't exist he would eventually leave" a pretty dead horse too ... repeated SO many times since I was here?
Is there any Massively Multiplayer in that? I know you don't care about MM, I know all you care about is "game" and not "world", but there's an untold number out there who are interested. But they ain't around this scene anymore, until someone builds something that's actually better.
And for the record, I was talking about working well as an MMorpg.
Is there any massively multiplayer in most WoW endgame gameplay?
Last time I played WoW with two or three hundred people in the immediate area it was a slide show.
Slide shows are a big reason why people like me tend to stay away from large scale PvP or PVE encounters.
When the number of concurrent user hurdle has been overcome, we will see the next generation of MMO's come to fruition.
Game worlds where 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions play in a single instance.
Were still in the baby steps phase of Massively Multiplayer games.
Prove me wrong
Wow released 13 years ago and with the upgraded graphics you can't expect it to run fine with hundreds of people in the same area. It was not originally built like this and when you add more and more stuff to an old engine you eventually get performance issues.
But hey, EQ2 had the same problem but worse since day 1 and it never got fixed.
Add the fact that many peoples hardware can't handle it. For instance I heard many guys complain about getting a slideshow in GW2 while my FPs have gone down to 45 a second (which isn't great but it certainly isn't bad either, it is very hard to notice the drop until it gets below 30).
Since we all use different hardware more then a few computers will have really bad performance around many people. High end users wont have a problem but for low end you either need to use culling or lower the view distance a lot and even wityh that it wont run well.
The third thing is that high end graphics and thousands of players in the same area does not mix well together.
So basically: If you make a new game with high hardware requirements and mid to low range graphics you can certainly make a massive game that runs fine. But it wont be pretty and need to sell only on gameplay instead of looks (as most MMOs been selling on for a long time).
You also need good mechanics that prevents chaotic zerging (zone of control and tactical formations should do the job). And if you are PvE focused you need enough content for all those players.
Can it be done? Certainly but will it ever be? Doubtful.
Last time I played WoW with two or three hundred people in the immediate area it was a slide show.
Slide shows are a big reason why people like me tend to stay away from large scale PvP or PVE encounters.
When the number of concurrent user hurdle has been overcome, we will see the next generation of MMO's come to fruition.
Game worlds where 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions play in a single instance.
Were still in the baby steps phase of Massively Multiplayer games.
Prove me wrong
Wow released 13 years ago and with the upgraded graphics you can't expect it to run fine with hundreds of people in the same area. It was not originally built like this and when you add more and more stuff to an old engine you eventually get performance issues.
But hey, EQ2 had the same problem but worse since day 1 and it never got fixed.
Add the fact that many peoples hardware can't handle it. For instance I heard many guys complain about getting a slideshow in GW2 while my FPs have gone down to 45 a second (which isn't great but it certainly isn't bad either, it is very hard to notice the drop until it gets below 30).
Since we all use different hardware more then a few computers will have really bad performance around many people. High end users wont have a problem but for low end you either need to use culling or lower the view distance a lot and even wityh that it wont run well.
The third thing is that high end graphics and thousands of players in the same area does not mix well together.
So basically: If you make a new game with high hardware requirements and mid to low range graphics you can certainly make a massive game that runs fine. But it wont be pretty and need to sell only on gameplay instead of looks (as most MMOs been selling on for a long time).
You also need good mechanics that prevents chaotic zerging (zone of control and tactical formations should do the job). And if you are PvE focused you need enough content for all those players.
Can it be done? Certainly but will it ever be? Doubtful.
Pretty much agreed.
The PVE content hurdle can be mostly solved with a more sophisticated AI than what game developers are capable of producing today.
Cars have been around for over a hundred years and we are still making new innovations with them year over year.
For me... its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
Anyways, My point to dear old nari is that the development of true MMORPGs are just as much stalled and stifled by current technology as much or more so then they are by popularity.
Every genre eventually suffers from "been there, done that". Every genre can gain a resurgence and be refreshed by the addition of new interesting and interesting mechanics.
Its called Evolution and without it, almost everything eventually dies.
Comments
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
They can be massive scaled, like killing a dragon or conquering a castle or small scaled and more solo centric. I don't mind going through a very long journeg to learn a new more powerful fireball skill.
That's what these games do. They tell you where to go and what to do. And they give you your success if you do. If you don't, say you are level 10 and you go to level 30 zones, breaking away from what the Devs tell you to do, they won't let you have success.
Moreover, you're a sardine in a can. Along with every other player. Puppets to the Dev puppet masters. You're the character in a comic book, written by someone else, exactly the same as a thousand or more other players.
You're "a legend in your own mind", so to speak.
There are a lot of ways a GOOD Sandbox world game can allow you to create your own choice of goals:
-From searching the world for new (or greater) magical powers,
-to building great wealth,
-to collecting rare things that you can set the price for, or for your own collection,
-to hunting trophies to display in your home,
-to becoming famous for something (like being a Dragon hunter of knowledge and skill),
-to being a guide through a magical forest,
-to running specific player events like auctions or hunting trips,
-to running a tavern/general store on the edge of an active hunting grounds,
-to many many things.
In a true Sandbox world that's really a good game, everything is open to your own choices for goals.
In Themeparks, they build the choice for you and that's all you can effectively do. And that's all that matters, according to what zone you are currently playing, soon to be changed anyways.
Once upon a time....
1. Building a good sandbox is way harder then a themepark, and unlike what the poor schmucks at Goblinworks thought it is not cheaper either. Yes, players create a lot of the content but getting the mechanics for that just right takes a lot of hard work.
2. There is always that nasty kid in a sandbox that never builds anything but jumps on the other kids sandcastles. If you reel him in he will scream like a pig and make everyone miserable, if you let him keep at it the builders will leave. We usually try to ignore that kid but it never helps.
Sandbox games do need strife but you tend to get far too many people only tearing things down and not making anything and when you get that unbalance the rest of the players tend to leave. That is why so many sandbox games have so few players, even otherwise pretty good games.
How will you solve that?
And no, I am not against sandbox games, far from it but sadly they far too often turn into FFA PvP loot games with less then 20K players. You need more people that build stuff then tears it down since building takes far longer then destroying.
We already have 1 Mortal online, don't need another one.
Especially today, after the "WoW clones" have run their course.
Problem # 2 isn't either.
What you are saying is correct but neglects what can be done to fix those old problems and make a truly good game.
Yes, some players just want to destroy. Whether it's what players build or player's fun.
But what if such destructions become game play? What if destruction of built things is a crime?
What if PKing is a crime?
What if there are official sanctions for such activities (warfare)?
Then such negative actions become more game play, as players "defend" themselves against those things just like they do in a sanctioned war (or have friends and/or associates take care of it for them, making cities, trade associations, etc., even more viable).
On top of that, if crimes come with an unavoidable penalty, the good guys get the satisfaction of "justice done" while the bad guys have to think twice BEFORE doing the crime.
I'm talking about penalties that hurt, but start out small so as to allow a little bit of such actions (in most cases). That would allow players to PK that jerk who's ruining their event.
Add the ability to declare war on groups, as another reason for the bad players to tow the line, and this would be outside of a justice system (part of regular game play).
There are social mechanics that can be used too, such as demanding guild or city bannings of particular troublemakers, or else war or trade sanctions.
There's a LOT that can be done, and it all would make for a much more interesting game world for the average player. Probably for "bad" players too, since it adds real challenge, as well as actually making their style viable in the overall scheme of things (just not rampant).
As far as Goblinworks, they screwed themselves when they started talking about instanced game play. That's contrary to a true worldly MMO.
Money, sheesh, you need a lot of money to make a good MMO. That's the fact of the matter.
But I do think a company can start out small and "basic". But they need a plan. And they absolutely need to have some things that grab players from the get-go.
This is -NO- Mortal Online I'm talking about.
Once upon a time....
As for ways to limit the people who just play to destroy other stuff more then a few games have tried (heard of "Trammel"? for UO) it is just that it is easier said then done. The jerks tend to stack up and the people gunting them for PK are never enough.
I am not saying it can't be done, just that you either need to take the realm approach (no PK to other realm members) or figure out something new that actually works.
Yes, Eve works but partly because it is in massive space and partly because you don't start build lots of stuff all around like in a ground based sandbox.
And Goblinworks were screwed the moment they thought a sandbox could be built for a tenth of the price of a themepark, The instancing wouldn't really matter since even without them they clearly didn't understand how much work making a good sandbox game is.
Writing a thousand quests is easy (vanilla Guildwars quests were written by 4 guys and it was several thousands, and those guys did other work including coding the engine) and you can predict what your players will do that way.
Sandboxes needs plenty of testing to work and that is expensive if you want to make it work. But I assume you know that as well unlike Goblin works.
Social mechhanics could help in the right game, CCPs WoDO were designed with a lot of that but it sadly got canned. In your case I would add a few factions at least, that limits the people who can destroy others work and gives you allies when they are running amok in your area. That is probably not enough and outlawing people like that didn't work in other games, nor does stuff like city guards.
If you give players a reason to do something they will, if it's fun. And there's plenty of PvP minded players who'd do that stuff in defense of their city/alliance when the need arises. They don't have to play city guards, just act as the bringers of justice against "criminals" against their fellow citizens.
City growth and success would come from player activity, and that should have ways of benefiting the citizens as a whole. So defending your fellow citizens and keeping them IN YOUR CITY should be a part of the social game play. Where as a poorly run city should lose it's citizens when they leave for a better place.
Trade between cities should play a major role in it all, too, enhancing the benefits of citizenship.
As far as testing, everything needs testing. Even those quests.
The real difference is in the designing. THAT's where Sandbox games become more difficult than Themeparks. Seeing the bigger picture is much harder when the game has everything meaning something to everything else, like in a Sandbox Worldly game.
And there are people capable of that. Just not usually the same ones who smooched their way up the Themepark ladder. (Which is probably the reason for the reluctance to change, even in decline.)
Once upon a time....
Why bother? Just take away free form pvp in a pve game, and put pvp in an instance. Problem solved .. and this has been done in gaming for a long time. There is no need to fix what is not broken.
And to be fair are there some rather interesting aspects about open world PvP if they just work out the kinks. We were not tallking about adding PvP to a PvE game (in that case why bother with instances either? PvP is usually terrible in PvE games) but either a PvP focused or a 50-50 game.
There is excitment in open world PvP if you do it right, problem is with most MMOs that the fights are determined by level and gear in most of the cases which of course is not very exciting at all. It does not work as an add-on to a PvE game but as I said, PvP is usually terrible there no matter how you do it.
Just saying that fun open world PvP can't be done is a misstake, the problem is just that it usually is incompetently done making only a few griefers happy. It is however not an easy task and require a low powergap.
FFA full loot PvP is another matter, I don't think you can do it competently in a fantasy MMORPG (a FPS like Doom where people drop a weapon you can walk over and pick up works though), at least not if you plan to even get 50K players.
Open world RvR is another matter. Amaranthar said: As long as the factions are pretty big and control some land it doesn't matter if it is a nation, a religious order or even a trading company or outlaw gang. It is about safety in numbers, conflicts and temporary allinces with other factions and so on.
And that is exactly what I was thinking, but I am also thinking that you shouldn't have to many of them or at least not too many alliances or the game gets too messy.
I don't think all quests actually require testing, or at least not much testing. There is just so much that can go wrong with killing rats in the moat. Escort quests, sure.
I am not against sandboxes, far from it. I am just pointing out that it is a lot of work and unlike themeparks there is no base model you just can copy, while there have been a few pretty good sandboxes so far they have been nowhere near the potential, There certainly are talented people who worked on sandboxes (the best I met personally is Notch).
What I see as the Ultimate Goal in MMO's (and I think it's quite possible) is a world that plays with freedom for the players. No more artificial boundaries, and I see level gaps that restrict players to zoned content as far too restrictive. Sure, every game should have advancement and thus limit lower "level" characters, but if a game can keep high "level" characters from "god-mode", that's what I think works for both sides of this equation.
I want to see freedom in game play advanced, and I'll try to expound on this.
For one thing, I'd like to see players able to build their own "factions" to the extent that they take over what MMO's to date do as NPC content. Open the door to it.
These factions could be based on anything a group of players (or an individual) wants.
-A temple of a deity
-A thieves guild controlling a city (or in competition)
-Mages guilds
-Explorers guilds
-Fishermen
-Merchants
-Smiths
-Even just standard guilds, or whatever players want.
And each of these, if they grow strong enough, become a "Faction" in their own right.
And cities would be made up of loose players and any "Factions", including guilds, that build something there (house, temple, guildhall, shrine, thieves den, store or tavern, etc.).
They'd be, in effect, a loose alliance and their "glue" would be their mutual benefit, not any code outside of that which would be needed to run things (voting for council seats, taxes, maintenance, NPC guards, etc.).
This would allow both world wide city-to-city interactions as well as internal Faction interactions.
So:
-one "Faction" might be pushing for the City to open up trade with another City, while another Faction might be totally against it.
-One guild of Smiths might be working to get city financing to help build a large forge, and another group of Smiths might be trying to beat them to that financing
-One set of political ideals might be working against another.
-The Thieves guild might be fighting against thieves from outside the city one day, trying to overthrow the City's council members another day, Fighting in a war to defend the City another day, and robbing it's Temples on another day.
Or, a single player or guild or any group of players, might want to build something out in the wilderness, totally avoiding City life (and it's benefits).
-A Mage Tower on top of a mountain
-A group of Miners
-A tavern/general store halfway between cities or near a Dungeon.
Each of these are also a Faction in themselves, and might have affects on others and even Cities due to trade or alliances or simply friendships/enemies/competitors.
This game would need a multi-layered highlighting system. Perhaps under the other character's name is color coded names like:
-his guild (blue for alliance, red for war),
-his criminal status ("murderer", or "thief") based on frequency and fame (if he has one)
-his alliance factor ("Allied" or no notation)
Or this can be shortened to colored letters. Or even small colored bubbles maybe.
The 3 primary factors in a game like this, with freedom and capabilities like this are:
1) Economy. The game needs a strong economic system that works and is free of cheats (mostly, probably can't ever cover everything). This sounds like PvP, but it's really Player vs. World.
Cooperation or Competition need to matter.
2) Open world Sandbox without the power gaps that make levels the be-all-end-all.
3) A real Justice system, to prevent rampant griefing and destruction of all that players try to build.
Such a game also needs a huge and interesting world full of cool stuff for both the individual and the Factions.
Add in GOOD quests (especially related to skill advancement and specific Faction benefits; Smiths, Temples, etc ), World -wide events, Wars for World Assets, and plenty of PvE and cool Dungeons.
Add in secrets (places, magic, lore, etc.).
Remember, I said the "Ultimate Goal". Obviously only a large company with oodles of cash can build this, as is.
But I think a smaller company, with good PR, can start with something much like UO, advanced a little and definitely with the working Justice system.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
I am sure people at Blizz are patting themselves on their backs to have abandon MMORPGS (titan) and make a shooter instead. In fact, Overwatch is the highlight of activision-blizz's quarterly report.
I know you don't care about MM, I know all you care about is "game" and not "world", but there's an untold number out there who are interested. But they ain't around this scene anymore, until someone builds something that's actually better.
And for the record, I was talking about working well as an MMorpg.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
Is there any massively multiplayer in most WoW endgame gameplay?
"untold number"? Lol .. now I can tell you that Blizz has 46M active users (https://venturebeat.com/2017/08/03/overwatch-and-hearthstone-help-blizzard-hit-a-record-46-million-active-monthly-players/).
I guess that is not "untold". An untold number is what? 100? 1000?
May be they are not around this scene anymore because they are playing Overwatch. "Working well as an MMORPG"?? As if Blizz and AAA companies care.
Didn't you just write two responses to a SINGLE post of mine? Which part of the "not going to" is that?
Prove me wrong Blizz
Pretty please with sugar on it
I like what Mark Jacobs is doing, an mmorpg engine from the foundation up. Hopefully an engine other companies can lease.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If you believe Blizz is incapable of making a AAA MMO, instead of not wanting to, i have a nice bridge in NYC to sell you.
Last time I played WoW with two or three hundred people in the immediate area it was a slide show.
Slide shows are a big reason why people like me tend to stay away from large scale PvP or PVE encounters.
When the number of concurrent user hurdle has been overcome, we will see the next generation of MMO's come to fruition.
Game worlds where 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions play in a single instance.
Were still in the baby steps phase of Massively Multiplayer games.
Prove me wrong
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But hey, EQ2 had the same problem but worse since day 1 and it never got fixed.
Add the fact that many peoples hardware can't handle it. For instance I heard many guys complain about getting a slideshow in GW2 while my FPs have gone down to 45 a second (which isn't great but it certainly isn't bad either, it is very hard to notice the drop until it gets below 30).
Since we all use different hardware more then a few computers will have really bad performance around many people. High end users wont have a problem but for low end you either need to use culling or lower the view distance a lot and even wityh that it wont run well.
The third thing is that high end graphics and thousands of players in the same area does not mix well together.
So basically: If you make a new game with high hardware requirements and mid to low range graphics you can certainly make a massive game that runs fine. But it wont be pretty and need to sell only on gameplay instead of looks (as most MMOs been selling on for a long time).
You also need good mechanics that prevents chaotic zerging (zone of control and tactical formations should do the job). And if you are PvE focused you need enough content for all those players.
Can it be done? Certainly but will it ever be? Doubtful.
The PVE content hurdle can be mostly solved with a more sophisticated AI than what game developers are capable of producing today.
Cars have been around for over a hundred years and we are still making new innovations with them year over year.
For me... its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
Anyways, My point to dear old nari is that the development of true MMORPGs are just as much stalled and stifled by current technology as much or more so then they are by popularity.
Every genre eventually suffers from "been there, done that". Every genre can gain a resurgence and be refreshed by the addition of new interesting and interesting mechanics.
Its called Evolution and without it, almost everything eventually dies.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee